Marvel's Film Future

Fysh

Following Iron Man's Box Office success, Marvel have announced various details on the future of their film-making ventures. The most obvious item was the Iron Man sequel, due out in 2010, but there are a few other interesting bits and pieces.

Firstly, no Marvel Studios movies in 2009. Apparently, they don't want to rush out any inferior product.

Secondly, Iron Man 2 will be followed by Thor in 2010 and 2011 will see a big-screen Captain America film followed by The Avengers.

Thirdly, as announced in Rich Johnston's latest Lying In The Gutters column, a whole bunch of existing Marvel cartoons are being released on DVD over the next year or so, with a bunch more being scheduled for release over the next 2-3 years.

(Newsarama article about new film announcements is here, Wikipedia page listing current and possible future projects for Marvel Studios is here, and Rich Johnston's column is here).

So, with the newsy bit out of the way, what do you make of that? I don't think the Iron Man sequel is a surprise, but the other movies are. It looks like the Avengers movie is going to depend on the other films to establish the characters, which is a risky move because if, say, the Cap movie tanks, it will have a knock-on effect. On the other hand, it's a cute detail to have the films inter-relate in the same way as the comics do.

The other thing I find interesting is the cartoon releases. I've found that the Spider-man and X-men cartoons from the 90's have aged quite badly in my opinion. They're not terrible or anything, but they don't compare well to modern cartoons in style (although later seasons of Spider-man have some relatively complex and long storylines). Is there really an audience these days for the crappy sixties Spider-man cartoon, though?

constitutionus

it think it bodes well how confident they are. theyre clearly not going to chuck out any old crap anymore as theyve been burned that way before in the past and with the money iron mans made , and the money i reckon theyll get off hulk 2, it should secure them enough capital not to have to cut corners

TBH the idea of a interconnected universe ala the comics is one of the most exciting things ive heard in ages. yes its a risk but the payoff could be massive. and with the JLA being in doubt because of the superman courtcase its looking like our best bet for a crossover team film.

given the care thats gone into iron man and hulk i think theyre onto something.

mind you, im hoping they can do an infinity gauntlet film

AngryBadger

I'm not surprised at all.

They've been kicking around the ideas for all the movies you listed, (with the possible exception of an "Avengers" movie) since I moved back up to Dublin nearly two years ago.

As a movie option the superhero genre has exploded in the last decade. Marvel hold licenses on some of the biggest characters around in terms of comics at least. I mean DC have Superman, batman, and Wonder Woman, but honestly what else? For example I love Green lantern and would kill to see a movie, but even amongst my friends, even those who read comics, some have never heard of the character.

Also I think Marvel have done a better job in general of marketing their movies, and, I suppose as an inevitable consequence of having more active film licenses, they've been able to capitalise on several different marketing demographics.

As I said in the "Iron Man" thread, i think this is genuinely the first superhero movie for adults. Of all the superhero movies I've seen to date this is the first with such a well rounded main character.

Look at the other movies Marvel have brought out. "Fantastic Four" is a family franchise. No question about it.

Spider-man, in fairness this is probably the only household license Marvel has which is on a par with the likes of Batman, and Superman, and they've developed it to appeal to a huge demographic cross-section. Same with X-men to some extent, although I feel that was more of a springboard for "Wolverine" than anything else.

Their successes with these franchises have allowed them to experiment with varying degress of success with other properties. Ok, so daredevil, and elektra pretty much tanked, and what was going on with the first Hulk movie? But all of those ventures taught them something about what they were doing.

Plus in terms of bringing these characters alive on the screen, specials effects have NEVER been more ready. In fact comic book license are perfect for transitions to movies which really exploit the effects that are only available in the last few years. I mean c'mon, how many movies can we watch with amssive CGI-ed armies of pirates.ninjas/pandas before we get bored? Now we can watch maurauding bands of mutants, demons, monsters and baddies of al shapes and sizes, and Marvel has the stable of character diversity to come up trumps.

On top of all that, (as if that weren't enough), big name sHollywood talent are now scrabbling to be attached to big comic movie projects. I mean ffs who ever imagined we'd see Ed Norton playing bruce Banner (FTW BTW!!!!!). And I gotta say I was stoked to hear that Downey was playing Tony Stark, and was NOT dissappointed by his performance.

So in short, I think the market is ready, the technology is ready, and after a small number of massive succeses, and a few dead ducks, Marvel has become proficient enough at translocating heroes from the page to the reel that they can now afford to start pumping out major projects, in their own time!!!!!!

This summer is going to ****ing rock!!!!!!

And I will cut anyone who disagrees <

---

KIDDING!!!

P.S. Was just thinking, it's interesting to see Marvel trying to build other license and then combine them into an "Avengers" feature, whereas DC are trying to pump up unknown properties by attaching them to a film with the already establish characters of Superman/Batman, although how they're gonna do that without Bale,a dn the guy who played Superman is beyond me. Actually can anyone tell me what's happening with Superman right now?

Fysh

In fairness to DC, the idea of a Justice League movie has been bounced around for a while, but they're worried about bringing it out soon due to both the failure of Superman Returns and the relative lack of mainstream awareness of most of the characters (as you say, the Green Lantern could be a great character but nobody's heard of him; the Flash had a TV show years ago, Wonder Woman in terms of mainstream awareness means that kitschy 60's tv show, and as for Aquaman, Hawkman/girl, or the Martian Manhunter...). Joss Whedon was talking about doing the Wonder Woman movie but ended up not doing it, and there were rumours of a Green Lantern TV series but nothing's materialised so far.

In regard to Marvel's couple of steamers, there are plenty more that you didn't mention. There was the dodgy 90's version of both Fantastic Four and Captain America; the Hoff as Nick Fury : Agent Of SHIELD in a made-for-TV movie; Dorff Lundgren as the Punisher in the first (and arguably less crap) Punisher movie, and a series of god-awful Spider-man movies in the seventies filmed on a budget that'd barely buy you a pint these days, if I recall correctly. (But then DC has similar ugly skeletons in its closet, so maybe it's best if we just forgive and forget...)

JangoFett

Its true, Marvel has a better on-screen record, but I don't see why DC wouldn't be able to make a kick ass Green Lantern movie!

For example, look what Marvel did with Blade! Nobody knew who the hell blade was then then BAM...mainstream movies!! 1st one being the best of course. So I just don't see why they couldn't take a mainstream obscure character like GL and do a good job. DC are always stalling on their movies projects, except Batman, which is kicking ass!! I liked Superman Returns, The Man Of Steel better have him fighting Bizarro or Metallo or Brainiac or something!!

Marvel have a master plan with their movies. DC don't. Thats what it comes down to.
Marvel have Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, Ed Norton as Bruce Banner and who are DC/WB gonna cast as The Flash?! That asshole from the OC!!

monkeyfudge

A great super hero is defined by the villains he battles against.

The Iron Man movie did a great job of establishing the character of Tony Stark and Iron man... but it fell flat when it pitted him against 'The Dude'

I never read much of the Iron Man comics, but his main arch nemeses that sticks out to me is the Mandarin.. and he's pretty awful as super villains go.

It's something you can't fault Batman for... he's got an unimaginably rich variety of exceptional villains.

I think a Captain America film could work solely because the Red Skull is a fantastic bad guy... and he worked very well in the opening scenes of the ****ty 90s film too.

JangoFett

I think they're looking at Mandarin as the villain in Iron Man II, if they give him a modern...hardening of sorts he could work quite well!

kowloon

Would love to see a retro superhero film, like Captain America vs The Third Reich, but it would be too easy to mess up.

Captain Britain FTW!

constitutionus

monkeyfudge wrote: »

A great super hero is defined by the villains he battles against.
variety of exceptional villains.

I think a Captain America film could work solely because the Red Skull is a fantastic bad guy... and he worked very well in the opening scenes of the ****ty 90s film too.

that was pretty much the best part of that film. for me the whole thing fell down when he got moved to the modern age. all the WW2 stuff was surprisingly fun.

in regards to the superman sequel word is the reason its not happening ISNT because it was a failour. it made decent money and shifted alot of DVDs (which is pretty much how we got hulk 2).

its the fact the family of one of the creators (cant remember which) who flogged the rights for him way back when for $30 won a court case to get a percentage of the earnings from the character. including the takings of the frirst film. thats a **** load of money so WB are are now conscerned that all the cash aint coming to them. hence why the doubt for the JLA film too.

once the royalties thing gets sorted im sure it'll get back up and running .

ztoical

JangoFett wrote: »

Marvel have a master plan with their movies. DC don't. Thats what it comes down to.

it has nothing to do with a master plan - DC are more limited with their options in that they can't sell the license to other production companies as they are owned by Time Warner. It does mean they can have movies in development hell for decades [hello wonder women] as they aren't worried about the license on the characters running out and theres less legal bull**** in the way for them. DC has also done well with their animated series and with live action tv. The joys of being owned by such a big company that owns production companies and tv stations and decent distributors is that they can focus on development and not have to worry about having to sell the product. Of course the downside is you have to work with that production company and are limited in your choices. Marvel selling the license to different production companies led to annoying contract clauses like Kingpin only be allowed to appear in Daredevil and not Spiderman.

Marvel has tired the in house production before with animation in the late '80's and made a mess of it, closing the studio and selling everything off to Saban [now owned by Disney] They tired expanding to quickly into game trading, other children's entertainment companies and distribution in the 90's and ended up bankrupt in 1996. So while in house production sounds great from a fan view point I worry about Marvels track record in expanding into other fields.

AngryBadger

JangoFett wrote: »

Its true, Marvel has a better on-screen record, but I don't see why DC wouldn't be able to make a kick ass Green Lantern movie!

I think they COULD do a great movie, but I don't thin they WILL. Bear in mind DC movies seem to be attached to Time-Warner, and they seem slow to invest heavilty in new licenses.

Whereas Marvel have gotten involved with several fidderent bodies and made films of varying cussess/failure but all of which have allowed them to experiment with different characters/approaches to the franchises.

JangoFett wrote: »

Marvel have a master plan with their movies. DC don't. Thats what it comes down to.
Marvel have Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, Ed Norton as Bruce Banner and who are DC/WB gonna cast as The Flash?! That asshole from the OC!!

Have to agree, with this. I don't think new movies NEED a big name star, but the fact that so many are itching to be attached to projects reflects the potential they have in hollywood now.

constitutionus wrote:

in regards to the superman sequel word is the reason its not happening ISNT because it was a failour. it made decent money and shifted alot of DVDs (which is pretty much how we got hulk 2).its the fact the family of one of the creators (cant remember which) who flogged the rights for him way back when for $30 won a court case to get a percentage of the earnings from the character. including the takings of the frirst film. thats a **** load of money so WB are are now conscerned that all the cash aint coming to them. hence why the doubt for the JLA film too.

Thanks for clearing that up Conn. I enjoyed Syngers Superman, although I know a lot of people criticised it for basically being a re-hash fo the first Superman movie. Is there any truth to the idea that SUperboys death in FC was also related to this lawsuit?

ztoical wrote:

So while in house production sounds great from a fan view point I worry about Marvels track record in expanding into other fields.

To be fair, while marvel have not had the same success with their animated material as DC, the latest crop have been much improved over previous efforts.

Saying that, the stable of DC animation is far superior "Justice League Unlimited" FTW!!!!

monkeyfudge

The new Spectacular Spider-man cartoon is very good by the way. Well worth checking out.

Legion of Superheroes got very good as well as it went along, but has unfortunately been canceled.

Fysh

AngryBadger wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up Conn. I enjoyed Syngers Superman, although I know a lot of people criticised it for basically being a re-hash fo the first Superman movie. Is there any truth to the idea that SUperboys death in FC was also related to this lawsuit.

I'll be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I buy that as the cause of it, though it's a convenient cover story. There's more on the Siegel case here, although I'd recommend not reading too much of the commentary from the Newsarama Forum, being that many of them appear to be bottom-feeding infrahumans more concerned with getting their monthly Superman fix than with the people responsible for creating the stories and characters getting paid fairly. But that's just me being opinionated.

I've read allegations that similar legal disputes are responsible for the aging of Superboy-Prime to a point where he could start calling himself Superman-Prime (and subsequently being killed off after his emo-mutation in Infinite Crisis) but I'm not entirely sure on the reasoning. Wikipedia article on the subject here (though as always Trust Wikipedia At Own Risk)

[quote=To be fair, while marvel have not had the same success with their animated material as DC, the latest crop have been much improved over previous efforts.

Saying that, the stable of DC animation is far superior "Justice League Unlimited" FTW!!!![/QUOTE]

JLU, Batman The Animated Series, Batman Beyond...all great stuff. That being said, it would be nice to see DC do more animation that isn't Batman-related in some way. (There's been Statix or whatever his name is, Teen Titans, and...what else? I don't know off the top of my head but I don't think it's been much...)

AngryBadger

Fysh wrote: »

JLU, Batman The Animated Series, Batman Beyond...all great stuff. That being said, it would be nice to see DC do more animation that isn't Batman-related in some way. (There's been Statix or whatever his name is, Teen Titans, and...what else? I don't know off the top of my head but I don't think it's been much...)

There was the lesser known "Superman" series

I thought "Teen Titans" was really good, apparently a lot of people hated it

monkeyfudge

Fysh wrote: »

JLU, Batman The Animated Series, Batman Beyond...all great stuff. That being said, it would be nice to see DC do more animation that isn't Batman-related in some way. (There's been Statix or whatever his name is, Teen Titans, and...what else? I don't know off the top of my head but I don't think it's been much...)

Well Legion of Superheroes was another one that ran for 2 seasons. Again for legal reasons they couldn't use Superboy, so what we had was a young Superman. And in the second season they introduced another young Superman who was a clone from the future created to fight Imperiex who was the villain for the entire second season.... although it was a very different Imperiex to what I remember from the comics.

It was pretty neat how in the second season they jumped forward 2 or 3 years and aged all the characters.

ztoical

Fysh wrote: »

JLU, Batman The Animated Series, Batman Beyond...all great stuff. That being said, it would be nice to see DC do more animation that isn't Batman-related in some way. (There's been Statix or whatever his name is, Teen Titans, and...what else? I don't know off the top of my head but I don't think it's been much...)

It wasn't really DC themselves who pushed all the bat shows but the animators and writers at Warner brothers animation who wanted to do a bat show and then it went so well they kept going. Tiny Toons and Animanics would be lumped in with the bat shows cus even thou they aren't comics based they were made by the same animators and writers who all moved onto the bat shows.

The thing to remember about DC is that they are not under the same pressure as Marvel to make movies - they are a sub of warner brothers who in turn are a sub of Time Warner. DC's job is to make comics and its Warner Brothers job to make films while Marvel either has to sell the license and loose control or make in house but have to put up the money and take more risk.

Jonesy3110

JangoFett wrote: »

I think they're looking at Mandarin as the villain in Iron Man II, if they give him a modern...hardening of sorts he could work quite well!

They did have him in the movie! That guy who is the leader of a terrorist group called the ten rings, and who has a ring on his finger which he is constantly playing with?

Oh and anyone who hasn't seen it yet, don't leave the cinema until the credits are over. Or if you can't wait, check it out on youtube :P
I also found an article about a hulk/iron man crossover, but I won't spoil it and I can't remember where I found it
I was lucky enough to score tickets to the Iron Man premiere and the movies.ie one which I gave away.
Now I'm counting down the days to Iron Man 2, I hear it's 2010.

I hope Marvel have a restraining order on Nicholas Cage for all future projects. And the Hoff.

ztoical

Jonesy3110 wrote: »

Oh and anyone who hasn't seen it yet, don't leave the cinema until the credits are over.

quick run and hide before bombidol catches you!

Jonesy3110

ztoical wrote: »

quick run and hide before bombidol catches you!

Argh I know!
I just realised their was an Iron Man thread and I was reading it and I rushed back here to edit -
And how come everyone knew about it but me??
I've seen the damn thing twice and I only heard about it today :P So NOT everyone knew :P

JangoFett

Jonesy3110 wrote: »

They did have him in the movie! That guy who is the leader of a terrorist group called the ten rings, and who has a ring on his finger which he is constantly playing with?

Oh....they killed him off very easily didn't they? How disappointing.

Anyway, Marvel Movies.

An Ant-Man movie....really?

Like REALLY?!

AngryBadger

JangoFett wrote: »

Oh....they killed him off very easily didn't they? How disappointing.

We don't know that they actually killed him. It's implied, but well, as they say "pics or it didn't happen"

After the recent Will Arnett sketch on Human Giant I think an Antman movie would be high-larious! (and Will Arnett is a front runner to play Antman...or was two years ago anyway...)

JangoFett

So they could be going for a comedy angle? Hmmm, wouldn't really tie in with the Avengers movie but its early days yet.

God dammit, if Marvel can make and Ant-Man movie surely DC/WB can make a freaking Flash Movie or Green Lantern movie!!!

Fysh

JangoFett wrote: »

Oh....they killed him off very easily didn't they? How disappointing.

Anyway, Marvel Movies.

An Ant-Man movie....really?

Like REALLY?!

Evidently you haven't seen any of Kirkman's The Irredeemable Ant-Man. It's basically a superhero comedy romp whose chief joke is that the main character who's meant to be a hero is actually a complete b*stard who, for example, uses his Ant-man suit to sneak into showers and changing rooms to spy on women.

I don't know about the Flash or Green Lantern as movies though; I haven't seen or heard of anything in either character's recent history that suggests an easily-adapted fresh new angle. I mean lets face it, both characters (and most DC characters in general) have a horrible convoluted history of continuity that the hardcore fans are practically rabid about letting go of. But that sort of thing is never going to reach the big screen, so if the only people who really like a character are the guys foaming at the mouth saying things like "HAL JORDAN WOULD TOTALLY NOT HAVE HAD SEX WITH THAT UNDERAGE ALIEN!" then where's the studio going to make its money?

AngryBadger

Fysh wrote: »

I don't know about the Flash or Green Lantern as movies though; I haven't seen or heard of anything in either character's recent history that suggests an easily-adapted fresh new angle. I mean lets face it, both characters (and most DC characters in general) have a horrible convoluted history of continuity that the hardcore fans are practically rabid about letting go of. But that sort of thing is never going to reach the big screen, so if the only people who really like a character are the guys foaming at the mouth saying things like "HAL JORDAN WOULD TOTALLY NOT HAVE HAD SEX WITH THAT UNDERAGE ALIEN!" then where's the studio going to make its money?

I dunno if I'd agree with you there. All of the super hero movies that've been released to date will have had their crop of hardcore fans, and many of the films introduced changes here and there without any real backlash from the fanbase. Certainly not a sufficient backlash to make me think they couldn't possible make a workable Green lantern movie.

Also, what's so complex about the Green Lantern mythos? I'd think a more or less straight lift of Hal's origin story would be perfect. Maverick pilot finds alien spacecraft, wherein dying Lantern bequeaths to Earthman his ring of power, and all associated responsibilities. Tweak things a little and introduce Sinestro as already being a rogue lantern, who comes gunning for Hal and you've got all the essentials of a Superhero movie.

JangoFett

Hell they could even make a workable one with Kyle...he's younger, the studio would like that

First 10-15 minutes of the film Kyle is confronted by a short shadowed figure in an alley way and is given the ring.

The ring educates him and he begins to use it and practice ring wielding (with some comic relief I'm sure) He learns of earth greatest Green Lantern and his fall into fear and his nemesis Sinestro

Sinestro comes to kill Kyle. Big Battle.

At the end of the movie, introduce the Corps.

Make a trilogy out of it. In the 2nd and 3rd re-introduce Hal a la Rebirth, but obviously faster and Guy Gardner...these movies need Guy

Final fight between Hal and Sinestro


I'D personally love to see THAT. When I started reading GL, Kyle was wielding the ring. I think it'd work and keep fans happy

Fysh

Oh come on, the Green Lantern mythos definitely has its share of fiddly continuity gubbins...You've got the whole Alan Scott thing (is he connected to the Lantern Corps? I don't think so but I'm not sure), then there's the Hal Jordan has died, come back, joined with Parallax and threatened to destroy the universe thing. Then there's Jon Stewart, Kyle Rayner and Guy Gardner having all been Lanterns thing. The more characters you have, the less screen time an individual can get and the harder it is to have a character-based narrative, which any superhero film has to be if it's going to get the audience interested (IMO).

I know it's a popular thing to have Hal as the archetypal Lantern, but the only thing that ever stood out to me from my limited perusal of GL comics was the whole "wants to bum a teenage alien" thing. Beyond that he's your generic lantern-jawed (hohoho, geddit?) hero type, with no interesting angle. And more importantly, the whole "space cop" thing is going to be a difficult sell in terms of mass appeal, I think. (Although it works to an extent for Doctor Who, so maybe)

TickingOrange

Jonesy3110 wrote: »

They did have him in the movie! That guy who is the leader of a terrorist group called the ten rings, and who has a ring on his finger which he is constantly playing with?

Not to be picky but that character's name was Raza. It was more of a nod to the fans as they haven't even decided what the second one will be about. Somebody else said its Hulk 2 its actually a reboot and that will be made very clear in the film itself.

JangoFett

In the JLA movie its gonna be John Stewart PURELY to have some ethnic diversity on the team. Weakening the team and character in the name of ethnic diversity, such a let down. Guy would be great in the JLA movie, he's a badass with a heart of more badass-ery!!

And your points against a GL movie, almost exactly what Ethan Van Sciver said to me...oh and he compared the Guardians to Oompa Loompas, The Emerald city on Oa to The emerald city in Oz and he said "OZ....OA...they just replaced the last letter of the alphabet with the first.....C'MOON!!!" A compelling argument. A few nerds behind me started crying

Fysh

TickingOrange wrote: »

Not to be picky but that character's name was Raza. It was more of a nod to the fans as they haven't even decided what the second one will be about. Somebody else said its Hulk 2 its actually a reboot and that will be made very clear in the film itself.

Well yes but the film also updated a bunch of other stuff like Stark's origin and let's face it, the original Mandarin isn't exactly a viable villain anymore. (Also, according to the varyingly-reliable Wikipedia, the novelisation of the film has Raza refer to someone more important than him within the Ten Rings organisation so there may still turn out to be a Mandarin villain...)

AngryBadger

Fysh wrote: »

Oh come on, the Green Lantern mythos definitely has its share of fiddly continuity gubbins...You've got the whole Alan Scott thing (is he connected to the Lantern Corps? I don't think so but I'm not sure), then there's the Hal Jordan has died, come back, joined with Parallax and threatened to destroy the universe thing. Then there's Jon Stewart, Kyle Rayner and Guy Gardner having all been Lanterns thing. The more characters you have, the less screen time an individual can get and the harder it is to have a character-based narrative, which any superhero film has to be if it's going to get the audience interested (IMO).

Well then why not tell the whole story retro-actively? Start in a timeframe where the lanterns corps have been around for a long time. Introduce some, or all of the characters you mentioned (although Alan Scott would have to be cut for this, I don't think anyone's going to argue with focusing on the corps as the primary source for a movie), hell they could use the recent sinestro corps story. Introduce the corps as they are, introduce several of the established lanterns, (I'd ****ing KILL to see Killowag on the big screen!!!!!!), then in alter movies focus in Hal Jordan, or Kyle Rayner, or whoever.

Very similar to what they did with Wolverine. my overall point here is that it's utterly do-able in a way that would satisfy enough hardcore fans, while bring in a completely new crop of fans.

TickingOrange

Fysh wrote: »

Well yes but the film also updated a bunch of other stuff like Stark's origin and let's face it, the original Mandarin isn't exactly a viable villain anymore.

So what's your point? I just pointed out that he wasn't supposed to be The Mandarin. The way he is written currently is actually fairly grounded. He looks like any middle aged Asian gentleman. He wears suits, has a pony tail and the rings are infused into his spine. He has become a master manipulator and doesn't even cackle!